1 . hiring practices of the Civil Rights Division at the Obama Justice Department. Todays installment relates to the Education Section: this Section has enormous power over issues such as race-based preferences in college scholarships, decades-old desegregation orders, and the federal response to racially motivated violence that plagues American schools. Recently, the Obama administration concluded that school discipline is often racially discriminatory merely because black students are disciplined at rates higher than their overall percentage in the population. The division has launched a campaign that undermines basic American traditions of right and wrong by attacking school discipline. When you read the radical backgrounds of lawyers in the Education Section below, youll see why.

2. every single one of the career attorneys hired since Obama took office has a fringe leftist ideological bent and nearly all have overtly partisan pasts. Every single one. The left still doesnt get it: they brazenly think this is perfectly acceptable .Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King rewrote hiring guidelines in 2009, resulting in hiring committee members being forced to toss any resume that did not describe a radical background.

3. Anurima Bhargava was hired as the new chief of the Section after working for the previous six years at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund .During her tenure at the NAACP LDF she litigated cases across the country seeking to defend and expand the use of racial preferences and racial quotas in public secondary schools and universities. One of the highlights of her work was her coordination of the filing of amicus briefs and other advocacy efforts in support of two Supreme Court cases in which liberal coalitions insisted that local schools be permitted to assign public students to different schools on the basis of race. Fortunately, the Supreme Court rejected this argument as unconstitutional.

a. In remarks to the United Nations Forum on Minority Issues just before joining the Justice Department, Ms. Bhargava described how imperative it was for schools to promote integration and social cohesion by considering race, language, immigration status, and religion in placement decisions .This woman is running the Education Section.

b. When it comes to the rights of non-traditional minorities, like whites, Ms. Bhargavas ideology of inclusion begins to crumble. Indeed, after the Bush Civil Rights Division negotiated a consent decree with Southern Illinois University to end racially discriminatory paid fellowships for which white graduates were told they were not eligible based on their skin color, Ms. Bhargava publicly blasted the decision as hinder[ing] the legitimate efforts of colleges and universities to create equal educational opportunity. [She has been] honored for her aggressive battles to prevent state referendums (i.e., real democracy at work) opposing racial preferences.

1 . hiring practices of the Civil Rights Division at the Obama Justice Department. Todays installment relates to the Education Section: this Section has enormous power over issues such as race-based preferences in college scholarships, decades-old desegregation orders, and the federal response to racially motivated violence that plagues American schools. Recently, the Obama administration concluded that school discipline is often racially discriminatory merely because black students are disciplined at rates higher than their overall percentage in the population. The division has launched a campaign that undermines basic American traditions of right and wrong by attacking school discipline. When you read the radical backgrounds of lawyers in the Education Section below, youll see why.

2. every single one of the career attorneys hired since Obama took office has a fringe leftist ideological bent and nearly all have overtly partisan pasts. Every single one. The left still doesnt get it: they brazenly think this is perfectly acceptable .Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King rewrote hiring guidelines in 2009, resulting in hiring committee members being forced to toss any resume that did not describe a radical background.

3. Anurima Bhargava was hired as the new chief of the Section after working for the previous six years at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund .During her tenure at the NAACP LDF she litigated cases across the country seeking to defend and expand the use of racial preferences and racial quotas in public secondary schools and universities. One of the highlights of her work was her coordination of the filing of amicus briefs and other advocacy efforts in support of two Supreme Court cases in which liberal coalitions insisted that local schools be permitted to assign public students to different schools on the basis of race. Fortunately, the Supreme Court rejected this argument as unconstitutional.

a. In remarks to the United Nations Forum on Minority Issues just before joining the Justice Department, Ms. Bhargava described how imperative it was for schools to promote integration and social cohesion by considering race, language, immigration status, and religion in placement decisions .This woman is running the Education Section.

b. When it comes to the rights of non-traditional minorities, like whites, Ms. Bhargavas ideology of inclusion begins to crumble. Indeed, after the Bush Civil Rights Division negotiated a consent decree with Southern Illinois University to end racially discriminatory paid fellowships for which white graduates were told they were not eligible based on their skin color, Ms. Bhargava publicly blasted the decision as hinder[ing] the legitimate efforts of colleges and universities to create equal educational opportunity. [She has been] honored for her aggressive battles to prevent state referendums (i.e., real democracy at work) opposing racial preferences.

1&#8230;. hiring practices of the Civil Rights Division at the Obama Justice Department. Today&#8217;s installment relates to the Education Section: this Section has enormous power over issues such as race-based preferences in college scholarships, decades-old desegregation orders, and the federal response to racially motivated violence that plagues American schools. Recently, the Obama administration concluded that school discipline is often racially discriminatory merely because black students are disciplined at rates higher than their overall percentage in the population. The division has launched a campaign that undermines basic American traditions of right and wrong by attacking school discipline. When you read the radical backgrounds of lawyers in the Education Section below, you&#8217;ll see why.

2. &#8230;every single one of the career attorneys hired since Obama took office has a fringe leftist ideological bent and nearly all have overtly partisan pasts. Every single one. The left still doesn&#8217;t get it: they brazenly think this is perfectly acceptable&#8230;.Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King rewrote hiring guidelines in 2009, resulting in hiring committee members being forced to toss any resume that did not describe a radical background.

3. Anurima Bhargava was hired as the new chief of the Section after working for the previous six years at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund&#8230;.During her tenure at the NAACP LDF she litigated cases across the country seeking to defend and expand the use of racial preferences and racial quotas in public secondary schools and universities. One of the highlights of her work was her coordination of the filing of amicus briefs and other advocacy efforts in support of two Supreme Court cases in which liberal coalitions insisted that local schools be permitted to assign public students to different schools on the basis of race. Fortunately, the Supreme Court rejected this argument as unconstitutional.

a. In remarks to the United Nations Forum on Minority Issues just before joining the Justice Department, Ms. Bhargava described how imperative it was for schools to promote &#8220;integration and social cohesion&#8221; by considering race, language, immigration status, and religion in placement decisions&#8230;.This woman is running the Education Section.

b. When it comes to the rights of non-traditional minorities, like whites, Ms. Bhargava&#8217;s ideology of inclusion begins to crumble. Indeed, after the Bush Civil Rights Division negotiated a consent decree with Southern Illinois University to end racially discriminatory paid fellowships for which white graduates were told they were not eligible based on their skin color, Ms. Bhargava publicly blasted the decision as &#8220;hinder[ing] the legitimate efforts of colleges and universities to create equal educational opportunity.&#8221; [She has been] honored for her aggressive battles to prevent state referendums (i.e., real democracy at work) opposing racial preferences.

This is an awful issue because it forces yokes on a free people they don't deserve.

I don't think this is "liberalism" as it was once defined. Where the left went wrong was adopting Saul Alinsky as a panacea for the ills of some, but not all of the people.

The left has discarded majority vote as the rule of thumb in society and embraced petty minority desires over the wishes of the people.

To freedom, the unthinkable behaviors being applied to the voting process that favors liberalism and disfavors conservatism are antithetical, and we are seeing many lawsuits following voting days to attempt to rein in the fruits of erroneous leftist thinking which goes over the line with America's former adherence to the rule of law.

The lawsuits directed at leftist precinct chairmen for cheating and ballot stuffing are causing many of us to lose faith in the vote, as we feel we are being inured into political slavery in the name of "doing what we select and more intelligent liberals think is best for everybody else."

1 . hiring practices of the Civil Rights Division at the Obama Justice Department. Todays installment relates to the Education Section: this Section has enormous power over issues such as race-based preferences in college scholarships, decades-old desegregation orders, and the federal response to racially motivated violence that plagues American schools. Recently, the Obama administration concluded that school discipline is often racially discriminatory merely because black students are disciplined at rates higher than their overall percentage in the population. The division has launched a campaign that undermines basic American traditions of right and wrong by attacking school discipline. When you read the radical backgrounds of lawyers in the Education Section below, youll see why.

2. every single one of the career attorneys hired since Obama took office has a fringe leftist ideological bent and nearly all have overtly partisan pasts. Every single one. The left still doesnt get it: they brazenly think this is perfectly acceptable .Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King rewrote hiring guidelines in 2009, resulting in hiring committee members being forced to toss any resume that did not describe a radical background.

3. Anurima Bhargava was hired as the new chief of the Section after working for the previous six years at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund .During her tenure at the NAACP LDF she litigated cases across the country seeking to defend and expand the use of racial preferences and racial quotas in public secondary schools and universities. One of the highlights of her work was her coordination of the filing of amicus briefs and other advocacy efforts in support of two Supreme Court cases in which liberal coalitions insisted that local schools be permitted to assign public students to different schools on the basis of race. Fortunately, the Supreme Court rejected this argument as unconstitutional.

a. In remarks to the United Nations Forum on Minority Issues just before joining the Justice Department, Ms. Bhargava described how imperative it was for schools to promote integration and social cohesion by considering race, language, immigration status, and religion in placement decisions .This woman is running the Education Section.

b. When it comes to the rights of non-traditional minorities, like whites, Ms. Bhargavas ideology of inclusion begins to crumble. Indeed, after the Bush Civil Rights Division negotiated a consent decree with Southern Illinois University to end racially discriminatory paid fellowships for which white graduates were told they were not eligible based on their skin color, Ms. Bhargava publicly blasted the decision as hinder[ing] the legitimate efforts of colleges and universities to create equal educational opportunity. [She has been] honored for her aggressive battles to prevent state referendums (i.e., real democracy at work) opposing racial preferences.

This is an awful issue because it forces yokes on a free people they don't deserve.

I don't think this is "liberalism" as it was once defined. Where the left went wrong was adopting Saul Alinsky as a panacea for the ills of some, but not all of the people.

The left has discarded majority vote as the rule of thumb in society and embraced petty minority desires over the wishes of the people.

To freedom, the unthinkable behaviors being applied to the voting process that favors liberalism and disfavors conservatism are antithetical, and we are seeing many lawsuits following voting days to attempt to rein in the fruits of erroneous leftist thinking which goes over the line with America's former adherence to the rule of law.

The lawsuits directed at leftist precinct chairmen for cheating and ballot stuffing are causing many of us to lose faith in the vote, as we feel we are being inured into political slavery in the name of "doing what we select and more intelligent liberals think is best for everybody else."

Click to expand...

1. In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates  who then headed the Voting Rights division  testified to a deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the law for the protection of white voters. J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff. Coates remembered Julie Fernandes, Obamas Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees the Obama administration was only interested in bringing cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters. Julie Fernandes | Impeach Obama Campaign

2. United States v. Ike Brown Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. You aint dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Browns law, was his motto. Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots, the notaries regularly cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

a. During one election, teams of federal observers counted hundreds of verified examples of illegal assistance. Brown lawlessly disqualified white candidates from running for office. Ike Brown institutionalized racial lawlessness, and brazenly victimized white voters during the 2003 and 2007 elections. And yet, many in the Voting Section never wanted the Department even to investigate the matter.

b. Hostility pervaded the Voting Section Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldnt be protected .Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

c. Before the trial, article after article appeared in the New York Times and other newspapers critical of the decision to bring the Ike Brown case. ABC News presented it as a classic man-bites-dog story. Even National Public Radio traveled to Noxubee to do a story suspicious of the Bush administrations decision to sue Ike Brown. The benefit of hindsight makes the national media effort to demean the case, and the hostility from the civil rights community, look laughable and petty. We won the case, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in two historic opinions.Pajamas Media » PJM Exclusive: Unequal Law Enforcement Reigns at Obamas DOJ (UPDATED: Adams Discusses this Article on Fox News) exclusive/4/

1 . hiring practices of the Civil Rights Division at the Obama Justice Department. Todays installment relates to the Education Section: this Section has enormous power over issues such as race-based preferences in college scholarships, decades-old desegregation orders, and the federal response to racially motivated violence that plagues American schools. Recently, the Obama administration concluded that school discipline is often racially discriminatory merely because black students are disciplined at rates higher than their overall percentage in the population. The division has launched a campaign that undermines basic American traditions of right and wrong by attacking school discipline. When you read the radical backgrounds of lawyers in the Education Section below, youll see why.

2. every single one of the career attorneys hired since Obama took office has a fringe leftist ideological bent and nearly all have overtly partisan pasts. Every single one. The left still doesnt get it: they brazenly think this is perfectly acceptable .Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King rewrote hiring guidelines in 2009, resulting in hiring committee members being forced to toss any resume that did not describe a radical background.

3. Anurima Bhargava was hired as the new chief of the Section after working for the previous six years at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund .During her tenure at the NAACP LDF she litigated cases across the country seeking to defend and expand the use of racial preferences and racial quotas in public secondary schools and universities. One of the highlights of her work was her coordination of the filing of amicus briefs and other advocacy efforts in support of two Supreme Court cases in which liberal coalitions insisted that local schools be permitted to assign public students to different schools on the basis of race. Fortunately, the Supreme Court rejected this argument as unconstitutional.

a. In remarks to the United Nations Forum on Minority Issues just before joining the Justice Department, Ms. Bhargava described how imperative it was for schools to promote integration and social cohesion by considering race, language, immigration status, and religion in placement decisions .This woman is running the Education Section.

b. When it comes to the rights of non-traditional minorities, like whites, Ms. Bhargavas ideology of inclusion begins to crumble. Indeed, after the Bush Civil Rights Division negotiated a consent decree with Southern Illinois University to end racially discriminatory paid fellowships for which white graduates were told they were not eligible based on their skin color, Ms. Bhargava publicly blasted the decision as hinder[ing] the legitimate efforts of colleges and universities to create equal educational opportunity. [She has been] honored for her aggressive battles to prevent state referendums (i.e., real democracy at work) opposing racial preferences.

This is an awful issue because it forces yokes on a free people they don't deserve.

I don't think this is "liberalism" as it was once defined. Where the left went wrong was adopting Saul Alinsky as a panacea for the ills of some, but not all of the people.

The left has discarded majority vote as the rule of thumb in society and embraced petty minority desires over the wishes of the people.

To freedom, the unthinkable behaviors being applied to the voting process that favors liberalism and disfavors conservatism are antithetical, and we are seeing many lawsuits following voting days to attempt to rein in the fruits of erroneous leftist thinking which goes over the line with America's former adherence to the rule of law.

The lawsuits directed at leftist precinct chairmen for cheating and ballot stuffing are causing many of us to lose faith in the vote, as we feel we are being inured into political slavery in the name of "doing what we select and more intelligent liberals think is best for everybody else."

Click to expand...

1. In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates  who then headed the Voting Rights division  testified to a deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the law for the protection of white voters. J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff. Coates remembered Julie Fernandes, Obamas Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees the Obama administration was only interested in bringing cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters. Julie Fernandes | Impeach Obama Campaign

2. United States v. Ike Brown Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. You aint dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Browns law, was his motto. Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots, the notaries regularly cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

a. During one election, teams of federal observers counted hundreds of verified examples of illegal assistance. Brown lawlessly disqualified white candidates from running for office. Ike Brown institutionalized racial lawlessness, and brazenly victimized white voters during the 2003 and 2007 elections. And yet, many in the Voting Section never wanted the Department even to investigate the matter.

b. Hostility pervaded the Voting Section Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldnt be protected .Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

c. Before the trial, article after article appeared in the New York Times and other newspapers critical of the decision to bring the Ike Brown case. ABC News presented it as a classic man-bites-dog story. Even National Public Radio traveled to Noxubee to do a story suspicious of the Bush administrations decision to sue Ike Brown. The benefit of hindsight makes the national media effort to demean the case, and the hostility from the civil rights community, look laughable and petty. We won the case, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in two historic opinions.Pajamas Media » PJM Exclusive: Unequal Law Enforcement Reigns at Obamas DOJ (UPDATED: Adams Discusses this Article on Fox News) exclusive/4/

Click to expand...

I found this link on the Ike Brown case, and I wonder how they let those who pervert the vote go right back to it again:

Brown ran the primary elections because he is the Democratic Party chairman. At the trial, a woman on Browns list testified that she was too afraid to vote because she thought she might be arrested.
The federal court found that the publication of the list of 174 names was an illegal form of intentional racial discrimination. The United States district court held:​

The question is whether Browns action with respect to this list of 174 voters was actuated by these party loyalty concerns or whether this was pretext for a true purpose to discourage white voters from coming to the polls, or some combination of the two. The court has carefully weighed the evidence and finds that while party concerns were a factor in Browns actions, race played a role as well. In sum, the court is of the opinion that Brown had the names of these white voters published in part because of party loyalty concerns, but also as an attempt to discourage white voters from voting in the 2003 Democratic primary.
​

Browns overall behavior was so outrageous that the court stripped him of all authority to run elections until 2012, and gave the power to a former justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court as a special administrator. The remedy was unprecedented, but upheld on appeal because of the brazen lawlessness of Ike Brown.
Fast forward to 2010, to the Eric Holder Justice Department.
Every change in voting in Mississippi must be submitted for approval to the DOJ voting section  where I worked for five years  under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 gives the DOJ power to object to any change motivated by a discriminatory racial intent or with a discriminatory racial effect in nine states and portions of seven. Changes to the law in 2006 made it clear that any discrimination would suffice to trigger an objection under the act.
Right now, the Holder Justice Department has a submission from Ike Brown to allow him to do precisely the same thing he tried in 2003  prevent people from voting based on their party loyalties.​

The Department must decide this week if white victims are worth protecting, by imposing an objection to the same behavior a federal court has already ruled was motivated by an illegal racial intent. If the races were reversed in this submission, there is zero doubt the DOJ would object to the proposal Link

This is an awful issue because it forces yokes on a free people they don't deserve.

I don't think this is "liberalism" as it was once defined. Where the left went wrong was adopting Saul Alinsky as a panacea for the ills of some, but not all of the people.

The left has discarded majority vote as the rule of thumb in society and embraced petty minority desires over the wishes of the people.

To freedom, the unthinkable behaviors being applied to the voting process that favors liberalism and disfavors conservatism are antithetical, and we are seeing many lawsuits following voting days to attempt to rein in the fruits of erroneous leftist thinking which goes over the line with America's former adherence to the rule of law.

The lawsuits directed at leftist precinct chairmen for cheating and ballot stuffing are causing many of us to lose faith in the vote, as we feel we are being inured into political slavery in the name of "doing what we select and more intelligent liberals think is best for everybody else."

Click to expand...

1. In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates  who then headed the Voting Rights division  testified to a deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the law for the protection of white voters. J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff. Coates remembered Julie Fernandes, Obamas Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees the Obama administration was only interested in bringing cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters. Julie Fernandes | Impeach Obama Campaign

2. United States v. Ike Brown Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. You aint dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Browns law, was his motto. Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots, the notaries regularly cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

a. During one election, teams of federal observers counted hundreds of verified examples of illegal assistance. Brown lawlessly disqualified white candidates from running for office. Ike Brown institutionalized racial lawlessness, and brazenly victimized white voters during the 2003 and 2007 elections. And yet, many in the Voting Section never wanted the Department even to investigate the matter.

b. Hostility pervaded the Voting Section Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldnt be protected .Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

c. Before the trial, article after article appeared in the New York Times and other newspapers critical of the decision to bring the Ike Brown case. ABC News presented it as a classic man-bites-dog story. Even National Public Radio traveled to Noxubee to do a story suspicious of the Bush administrations decision to sue Ike Brown. The benefit of hindsight makes the national media effort to demean the case, and the hostility from the civil rights community, look laughable and petty. We won the case, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in two historic opinions.Pajamas Media » PJM Exclusive: Unequal Law Enforcement Reigns at Obamas DOJ (UPDATED: Adams Discusses this Article on Fox News) exclusive/4/

Click to expand...

I found this link on the Ike Brown case, and I wonder how they let those who pervert the vote go right back to it again:

Brown ran the primary elections because he is the Democratic Party chairman. At the trial, a woman on Browns list testified that she was too afraid to vote because she thought she might be arrested.
The federal court found that the publication of the list of 174 names was an illegal form of intentional racial discrimination. The United States district court held:​

The question is whether Browns action with respect to this list of 174 voters was actuated by these party loyalty concerns or whether this was pretext for a true purpose to discourage white voters from coming to the polls, or some combination of the two. The court has carefully weighed the evidence and finds that while party concerns were a factor in Browns actions, race played a role as well. In sum, the court is of the opinion that Brown had the names of these white voters published in part because of party loyalty concerns, but also as an attempt to discourage white voters from voting in the 2003 Democratic primary.
​

Browns overall behavior was so outrageous that the court stripped him of all authority to run elections until 2012, and gave the power to a former justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court as a special administrator. The remedy was unprecedented, but upheld on appeal because of the brazen lawlessness of Ike Brown.
Fast forward to 2010, to the Eric Holder Justice Department.
Every change in voting in Mississippi must be submitted for approval to the DOJ voting section  where I worked for five years  under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 gives the DOJ power to object to any change motivated by a discriminatory racial intent or with a discriminatory racial effect in nine states and portions of seven. Changes to the law in 2006 made it clear that any discrimination would suffice to trigger an objection under the act.
Right now, the Holder Justice Department has a submission from Ike Brown to allow him to do precisely the same thing he tried in 2003  prevent people from voting based on their party loyalties.​

The Department must decide this week if white victims are worth protecting, by imposing an objection to the same behavior a federal court has already ruled was motivated by an illegal racial intent. If the races were reversed in this submission, there is zero doubt the DOJ would object to the proposal Link

The problem for the OP - and the anti-Obama right in general - is that in this case there is no evidence that candidates with conservative credentials are being passed over and less qualified candidates selected, as was the case during the Bush administration.

Under the Bush DOJ, candidates with liberal affiliations, such as the Sierra Club or the ACLU, were rejected by Bush DOJ staff for positions.

In addition, if one is going to hire lawyers dedicated to the mission of the Civil Rights Division, they will more than likely have a liberal background:

During the Obama administration, the Justice Department has restored a critical tradition to its civil rights division: It has hired attorneys who are committed to the enforcement of the nations civil rights laws. According to an article in The New York Times, department officials have reversed the Bush administration practice of hiring lawyers with conservative backgrounds who were indifferent or openly hostile to civil rights laws  a practice which led to Congressional hearings about improper hiring practices there. The large majority of new hires for the storied division have worked for civil rights or other liberal organizations in the past. Less than 40 percent of the attorneys hired for the division during the Bush years listed such credentials. Interestingly, the Times reports, division hires during the Obama administration also tended to have graduated from higher-0ranked law schools than those hired under the Bush administration. The former graduated from law schools with an average ranking of 28, according to U.S. News and World Report; the latter, from law schools with an average ranking of 42.

Since conservative lawyers are, for the most part, hostile to the concept of defending Civil Rights, and their backgrounds and experience are not in Civil Rights litigation accordingly, it is logical and expected for staff at Civil Rights to have liberal credentials.

Certainly conservatives arent advocating the Obama DOJ hire less qualified lawyers to work in the Civil Rights Division, as its the responsibility of the AG to hire the best qualified candidates, regardless of partisan background.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!